Hacker News new | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submit login

I don't know why you're getting downvoted. Obviously, Haskell can buy you a number of guarantees, but just like the fact that your program type-checks isn't proof against logical errors, it also doesn't mean you wrote the stop condition for this recursive function correctly, or that you are not going to run out of memory at runtime.

In practice, and it has also been my experience, as long as you leverage the type system, the debug time necessary to get a correctly-working program in a statically, strongly typed language tends to be significantly shorter than with a dynamic language (or with a statically typed language with a more primitive type system). The size of the code is often comparable as well.




Productivity is a different metric from safety. It is more reasonable to argue that haskell allows you to write correct code faster than it is to argue that haskell allows you to write "more correct/safe" code.


That's a good way to think about it. Any code can be made correct (for most use cases) with the right amount of man-hours. It's more a question of how many man-hours that is (and how many of them are needed to ensure that correctness is not lost when the code evolves).




Guidelines | FAQ | Support | API | Security | Lists | Bookmarklet | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: